On 11/19/15 11:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter >> wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message >> (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but >> even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come >> up with something more to put into the documentation? > > Yeah, we should highlight the facts that recovery can be made more > responsive when attempting to detect WAL. In archive recovery, this > can be translated by the fact that new WAL segments can be detected > more quickly and make recovery more responsive. The opposite is > actually what leaded to the patch: requirement was to limit the number > of times archive host was requested with a server that had low > activity, the archive host being on AWS. > > An idea would be something like the patch attached. Thoughts?
Sounds good. Thanks! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
